WP(C)/3666/2011
2021 Latest Caselaw 947 Gua

                                                                                 Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010006962011




                          THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/3666/2011

              Abhijit Baruah
              S/O Padma Kanta Baruah,
              R/O Singia Dewrigaon,
              P.O.Biharigaon, Dist Nagaon,
              Assam
                                                                              ........Petitioner
              Versus

              1. The State of Assam
              Rep. By Secy. to The Govt. Of Assam,
              Home Deptt, Dispur, Ghy-6.

              2.The Director General Of Police
              Assam, Ulubari, Ghy-7,
              Dist Kamrup, Assam.

              3.The Addl. Director General Of Police (T & AP)
              Assam, Ulubari
              Ghy-7, Dist Kamrup, Assam.

              4.The Inspector General of Police (Admn)
              Assam, Ulubari
              Ghy-7, Dist Kamrup, Assam.

              5.The Selection Committee
              Rep. By Inspector General of Police (Admn)
              Assam, Ulubari
              Ghy-7, Dist Kamrup, Assam.

              6.Dipu Bora
              S/O Gulap Bora
              A candidate who appeared in the selection procedure
              for the recruitment to the rank Of Sub Inspector of Police UB
              C/O Inspector General of Police (Admn)
              Ulubari, Ghy-7 Residing At Vill. Gubor Dewri Gaon
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/9

             P.O.Bihorigaon
             P.S.Nagaon Sadar
             Dist Nagoan, Assam.

             7.Madhuya Dadhora
             A candidate who appeared in the selection procedure
             for the recruitment to the Rank of Sub Inspector of Police (UB)
             C/O Inspector General Of Police Admn Ulubari
             Ghy-7, residing At Vill. Dimaruguri
             P.S. Nagaon Sadar, Nagaon, Assam.

             8.Annapurna Chetri
             A candidate who appeared in the selection procedure
             for the recruitment to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police UB
             C/O Inspector General of Police Admnulubari, Ghy-7.

             9.Monujjal Gogoi
             A candidate who appeared in the selection procedure
             for the recruitment to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police UB
             C/O Inspector General Of Police Admn Ulubari Ghy-7,
             Preseiently Residing At RCC-III,
             Boys Hostel, Gauhati University, Ghy-1.
                                                                             ........Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. S. K. Goswami

Advocate for the respondents : Mr. D. Nath, Mr. A. Gogoi, Mr. M. Khanikiar, Mr. B. Chetry.

Date of hearing                     : 09.03.2021
Date of judgment                    : 12.03.2021

                              JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. A. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Mr. M. Khanikar, learned counsel for the respondent Page No.# 3/9

No. 9, whereas Mr. B. Chetry, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 8.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved in not being selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD) under the Government of Assam. The challenge made by the petitioner to his non-selection for the said post is that while he had secured 198.5 marks in the selection process, persons who secured lesser marks than the petitioner have been appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD). Further, as he had passed graduation in the second division, he was awarded 6 marks, while similarly situated candidates were awarded 6/7 marks.

3. The brief facts of the case is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.01.2010, inviting applications for filling up 98 vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD), the petitioner took part in the selection process. The petitioner secured 198.5 marks, which was higher than the marks secured by some of the selected candidates. The petitioner was not selected due to the petitioner not having secured the cut off marks of 25 out of 50 marks in the interview segment of the selection process, as required in the advertisement dated 01.01.2010.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the allotment of marks in the interview segment to the candidates has not been uniform. While the petitioner had secured a total of 24 marks in the interview segment, he should have secured one extra mark for educational qualification, keeping in mind the marks allotted for educational qualification to some of the candidates, as reflected in the consolidated final result sheet of the selection test.

He submits that the educational qualification required of a candidate was Graduate in Arts, Science, Commerce or equivalent stream from a recognized college/institution. Further, due weightage was to be given to those having adequate knowledge and proficiency in computer. He also submits that while some of the

candidates, who had secured 2nd division in the graduation course had been allotted 7 to

8 marks, the petitioner on the other hand, who had also secured 2 nd division, has only been allotted 6 marks. In this respect, the petitioner's counsel has pointed out the marks Page No.# 4/9

obtained by the petitioner vis-a-vis the marks obtained by persons who are in the "consolidated final result sheet of the selection test", who are listed at Sl. Nos. 23, 49, 50, 56, 58, 74, 110, 119, 124, 150, 170 and 187. He submits that if the petitioner was allotted 7 marks for his educational qualification, he would have secured the cut off marks of 25 in the interview segment, due to which he would have been selected and appointed on the basis of overall marks secured by him.

5. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the State respondents, has brought the official records for perusal. He submits that the candidates, who have been allotted 7 to 8 marks for educational qualification in the interview segment have been given the said marks on account of they being post graduate degree holders. He accordingly submits that as the petitioner, who is only a graduate, did not qualify in the interview segment as he had secured only 24 marks, the petitioner could not be considered for selection and appointment.

6. The counsels for the private respondents submit that all the private respondents have secured the cut off marks in respect of all the three segments of the selection process/tests required to be done and as such, there was no infirmity with the selection and appointment of the private respondents to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD). They also submit that the appointment orders of the private respondents had been issued on 08.12.2011.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The advertisement dated 01.01.2010 required candidates, who applied for the 98 vacant posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD) to be Graduate in Arts, Science, Commerce and equivalent stream from a recognized college/institution. The advertisement also states that due weightage is to be given to the following candidates at the time of interview:-

"(a) academic result and Higher educational qualification

(b) one who possesses N.C.C. "C" Certificate.

Page No.# 5/9

(c) Outstanding sports persons, who represented the State in the Nationals in the events included in the National Game and also those who have represented their Universities in the Inter-University sports discipline.

(d) Proficiency in Judo/Carate at Black Belt level

(e) Adequate knowledge and proficiency in Computer."

9. The selection process was divided into three main segments, i.e., (i) written tests (2) physical test and (3) interview. The candidates were supposed to have the required physical measurements and thereafter take part in the written test, compromising of 2 papers of 100 marks each. The candidates who secured the qualifying marks of 40% marks each in both the papers were to take part in the physical test which comprised of 50 marks. The physical test included the following:-

The candidates who secured 25 marks out of 50 marks in the Physical test could advance to the next test, i.e., the interview segment.

10. The interview segment marks were allotted as follows:-

(iii) NCC 'C' Certificate/Outstanding sports person who represented the State in the Nationals in the events included in the National Games and also those who have represented their Inter-University, sports discipline/ proficiency in Judo/Karate at (Black Belt) level/any other extra-curricular activities National

Out of the total 50 marks allotted for the interview segment, the candidates were to secure a minimum of 25 marks to be in the zone of consideration for final selection. The final selection was then made on the basis of the total marks of the Page No.# 6/9

candidates secured in the written test, physical test and interview.

11. The petitioner has secured 198.5 marks in the written test, physical test and interview put together. It is not in dispute that the persons who have secured less marks than the petitioner have been selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (UD). However, the petitioner has not been selected due to the fact that the petitioner has secured only 24 marks in the interview segment, while the selected persons have secured the cut-off marks in all the three segments of the selection tests. The petitioner's grievance is with respect to the marks allotted to him for his educational qualification, which compromises of 10 marks. The petitioner's case is that as he had

secured 2nd Division in his graduation, he had been allotted only 6 marks for educational qualification, while similarly situated candidates had been allotted 7 to 8 marks for

educational qualification, though they also passed their graduation course in the 2 nd Division.

12. The petitioner's counsel has taken me to the marks secured in the educational qualification in respect of the candidates who are at Serial Nos. 23, 49, 50, 56, 58, 74, 110, 119, 124, 150, 170 and 187 of the "consolidated final result sheet of the selection test."

To have a better understanding of the case, the marks secured by the above noted candidates for educational qualification, Chart-I has been prepared, which is an extract of the "consolidated final result sheet of the selection test".

CHART - I

Sl. No. Name of the candidate Educational Qualification HSLC HSSLC TDC PG Other Qualification Educational Qualification10 marks

23 Sankar Dayal M.Sc 1st 2nd 2nd 1st Computer Basic 8

49 Rana Bhuyan MBA 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd CE 6 months 6

50 Birakson Ramchiary BA 2nd 1st 1st 2nd Computer Basic 6 Page No.# 7/9

56 Dipankar Gogoi M.Sc 1st 2nd 2nd 1st Computer 8

58 Kalpajit Sarmah MBA 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd Computer 8

74 Utpal Bora MBA 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st NCC 'C' 7

110 Mawdla Daimari MA 2nd 2nd Simple 2nd 7

119 Nava Kr. Doimary MA 3rd 3rd 2nd 1st DTP 3 months 7

124 Miss Vanrohlim Hmar MA 3rd 1st 2nd 2nd DCA 1 year 7

150 Champak Malakar BA 1st 2nd 2nd - - 6

170 Hirak Jyoti Saikia M.Sc 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st Computer DCA 1 year 7

187 Byash Jyoti Saikia MA 2ND 1ST 2ND 2ND - 7

127 Abhijit Baruah (Writ Petitioner) BA 2nd 1st 2nd - C.E. 3 months 6

13. The marks obtained by the private respondents herein with regard to their educational qualification is prepared as Chart-II, as follows:-

CHART - II

Sl. No. Name of the candidate Educational Qualification HSLC HSSLC TDC PG Other Qualification Educational Qualification 10 marks

14 Dipu Bora Respondent No. 6 BA 2nd 2nd 2nd - DCA 6 months 5

128 Madhuryya Dadhara Respondent No. 7 B.Sc 1st 1st 2nd - Tally Computer 3 months 7

183 Miss Annanaurna Chetri Respondent No. 8 BA 2nd 2nd 2nd - Computer Basic 3 months 5

195 Manujjal Gogoi Respondent No. 9 BA 2nd 2nd 1st - - 6

14. A perusal of Chart-I shows that those persons who not only passed graduation

in the 2nd Division, but were also having post graduate degrees, have been given 7 or 8

marks. However, graduates who passed in the 2nd Division, but did not have post graduate degrees, were given 6 marks for educational qualifications. In respect of Chart- II, it is seen that the respondent No. 7 has been awarded 7 marks for educational Page No.# 8/9

qualification, though she was not having a post graduate degree, but had passed her

graduation in the 2nd Division. However, it is seen that the respondent No. 7 had

secured 1st Division in both her HSLC and HSSLC examination. On the other hand, the

petitioner had secured 2nd Division in his HSLC examination and 1st Division in HSSLC examination.

15. On perusing the "consolidated final result sheet of the selection test", it is seen

that graduates having 2nd Division, who had secured 1st Division in either HSLC or

HSSLC examination, were given 6 marks. However, graduates who secured the 2 nd

Division, but who secured 1st Division in both HSLC and HSSLC examinations have been given 7 marks. This is clear from the marks obtained by Sl. No. 2, 3, 6 etc. in the "consolidated final result sheet of the selection test". Thus, on a perusal of the marks awarded to candidates on the basis of the "consolidated final result sheet of the selection test", this Court finds that the method of giving marks, depending upon the educational qualifications is uniform. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the marks allotted by the selection committee to the petitioner.

16. In the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan reported in 1990 1 SCC 305, the Apex Court has held in para 12 as follows:-

"...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going Page No.# 9/9

through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."

17. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (Supra) , this Court cannot arrogate to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of candidates and substitute its views on the process and method adopted by the selection committee while awarding marks and selecting the candidates.

As the petitioner did not secure the cut off marks of 25 in the interview segment, the petitioner was rightly not selected, despite having higher marks in total, than other selected candidates.

18. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant